MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W152962513

Anti-Poverty Policies and the Adoption of Bill 112 in Quebec: A Change of Path?

2012· article· en· W152962513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pascale Dufour

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique sociale · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Collective actionPoliticsWelfare economicsHumanitiesPolitical economyEconomySociologyEconomicsGeographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we address anti-poverty policies in Quebec and especially the adoption of Bill 112 in December 2002. We argue that apart from structural elements specific to the Quebec context, without the popular mobilisation initiated by the Collectif pour une loi sur l'elimination de la pauvrete, Bill 112 would not have been developed or passed into law. We show first how social actors have created a movement that changed the conditions of public action towards poverty, analysing the particular political opportunity structure of the time period (1995-2002) favourable to the Collectif and two internal dimensions of the movement: its efficient strategy, and the fact that poor people themselves were at the forefront of the mobilisation. We then argue that these changes are not equivalent for all poor persons in terms of material gains. We finish by suggesting that the most important change is cognitive. All in all, Bill 112 should be seen as an exception in the political treatment of poverty; but a moment that has only slightly changed the rules of the game and the possibilities for future state actions. Dans cet article, nous traitons des politiques anti-pauvrete au Quebec et specialement de l'adoption de la Loi 112 en decembre 2002. Nous soutenons que mis a part des elements structurels specifiques au contexte quebecois, sans la mobilisation populaire initiee par le Collectif pour une loi sur l'elimination de la pauvrete, la Loi 112 n'aurait pas ete proposee ou adoptee. Nous montrons, dans un premier temps, comment les acteurs sociaux ont cree un mouvement qui a change les conditions de l'action publique envers la pauvrete, en analysant la structure d'opportunite politique de la periode (1995-2002) favorable au Collectif ainsi que deux dimensions internes du mouvement: sa strategie efficace et le fait que les personnes pauvres elles-memes etaient a l'avant-plan des mobilisations. Nous soutenons, ensuite, que ces changements ne sont pas identiques pour toutes les personnes pauvres, en termes de gains materiels et nous terminons en suggerant que le changement le plus important est surtout cognitif. Tout bien considere, la Loi 112 doit etre vu comme un moment d'exception dans le traitement politique de la pauvrete; mais un moment qui change les regles du jeu (meme marginalement) et les possibilites de l'action publique future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Social Policy / Revue canadienne de politique sociale→Same topicSocial Sciences and Governance→French-language works237,207→